• Fishing for private practice

• Look after the families of the fallen

• Should teachers be sent to jail?

Fishing for private practice

I am writing this letter on behalf of patients attending clinics in Government hospitals, and since it is a tendentious subject, I urge the attention of President Mahinda Rajapakse.

In the budget speech he announced a new form of governance and policy that is people oriented, meaning thereby that he would henceforth give thought to egalitarian principles and practices.

Private practice by Government doctors is curtailed now to non-duty hours. But this is a seminal error of interpretation. All public servants are deemed to be on ‘duty’ 24 hours of the day, everyday, even when on leave. Felix Dias Bandaranaike, then Minister of Public Administration made a complaint to me - when I was Superintendent of Health Services, Colombo - that there was a ‘habitual drunkard’ in the Dompe Hospital.

I made a surprise night visit and found the man, off duty, loitering in hospital premises, and drunk. He was interdicted on the spot though he threatened to jump into the Kelani River.

My order was set aside by the Directorate, on hearing which the Minister summoned an emergency meeting of all the Directors including the Minister of Health, and among other things, upheld my decision. That is, all public servants are morally bound to conduct at all times without bringing the Government that pays them to public disrepute.

I think Government doctors are well paid today than in my time 40 years ago. Five Medical Colleges train an annual surplus, and the cadre of some grades is exceeded.

Though there are shortages of some specialists, in the periphery, I suggest that with devolution of powers to Provincial Councils, regional minister of health be given authority and responsibility to decide who should be allowed private practice, whereas in main cities like Colombo, Kandy, Matara, Galle, all private practice should be prohibited on a policy of ‘take it or leave.’

I have consistently objected to private practice but ironically, it became my duty to write the very first departmental circular on the rules of consultation practice, and experience the chagrin of seeing it flouted willy-nilly with connivance of politicians. Generally, politicians are scared of doctors because they may have to consult them.

The provocation to write this came when I knew that, at some hospitals, Government Consultants and their staff see mentally sick patients publicly at their hospital clinics, though not at private consultations.

However labeled, and wherever seen, these persons suffer from conditions not in their power to control. It is grossly unethical to expose them and relatives to interrogation and comment in the hearing and observation of others sitting, and sometimes standing before them.

Apart from clouding by humiliation eliciting true behavioural information to guide diagnostic and therapeutic management, this egregious habit is an indirect way to fish for private practice. It is another instance of medical misconduct. I have worked at several hospitals in London and never were such patients seen publicly.

I assume it is so everywhere in the West and our Consultants trained there know it. But for far too long, doctors have treated patients as cattle, not entitled to sensitivity and respect because treatment is free. We must not only bring about material improvements.

These would count for nothing if there is no attitudinal change. Self-centered persons can erode one’s effort and of colleagues. It is time now we set standards of public service with the ministries of health giving leadership in humanity.

DR. KINGSLEY HEENDENIYA - Nugegoda

Look after the families of the fallen

The death of posthumously promoted DIG Charles Wijewardene shocked all rugby loving fans in this country. A gentleman par excellence he provided us with the thrills with running and kicking that I believe no one is yet to emulate.

He was a team man, a man of principles and a disciplined officer. His untimely death would have been prevented if his superiors had provided enough protection to him when he went out to investigate a murder caused by Army personnel.

Much had been promised to his family but according to newspaper reports they received nothing and had to bear the funeral expenses too. The vehicle and residential facilities given to the family were withdrawn. Their requests to meet the then President and ministers had been declined up to now.

I remember that almost ten years ago the same fate befell the family of Colonel Fazly Laphir. A soldier who had served his country with much credit involving himself in all major battles including the one for Jaffna Fort was fatally wounded in the battle to save the lives of thousands of fellow soldiers and to regain the Mullaitivu Camp.

Colonel Laphir although ill, volunteered to lead the troops without proper transmission equipment. The troops landed in Ilampil but were surrounded by the Tigers. Seeing that his troops were in difficulties Colonel Laphir jumped out of the helicopter and joined the fray.

The rest is history. He was posthumously awarded the Parama Weera Vibushanaya (PWV), the highest medal for voluntarily making supreme sacrifice for the sake of the country. This is equal to the Victoria Cross that is awarded in Britain.

There is a parallel between what befell both above families. Colonel Laphir’s family too only got a medal and the compensation normally paid to any soldier. The vehicle was also withdrawn for which this Commanding Officer’s family was entitled.

They went through immense difficulties without any help from the Army. The others who were awarded the same medal were treated differently by the State. Here too the president failed to give an interview to his widow.

Let’s hope that the present President would act differently in both cases now, even at this late stage.

S. L. PERERA - Kalubowila

Should teachers be sent to jail?

The Sri Lankan Government has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Child.

Consequent to the ratification of these instruments, the Government amended Section 308 of the Penal Code by Act No. 22 of 1995 which made jail terms imperative in the case where any person wilfully assaults or ill-treats any person under eighteen years of age (now described as a child) in a manner likely to cause him suffering or injury.

The earlier Section 308 of the Penal Code referred to as ‘Children’ only persons under 12 years of age.

A ‘young person’ is defined in the Children and Young Persons Ordinance No. 48 of 1939 as amended to mean ‘a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of 16 years’ and a ‘child’ is defined as ‘a person under the age of 14 years’.

As a result of the amendment vice principals, teachers and others have been convicted of assault and mandatorily sentenced to jail for two years.

Is the law too harsh, when even in murder cases charges are reduced to culpable homicide and suspended jail terms are given?

Besides, what is the impact of sending teachers to jail, on their families and on the educational administration in general? Apart from losing the present employment the offender has to go through the trauma of facing criminal charges and he and his family are ostracized from society.

Under the present law, if a parent chastises a child under 18 years of age and causes hurt or even a minor injury he or she will end up in jail. What of the age old maxim of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ which has now been jettisoned? Is this not desirable especially in the present day when juvenile violence, thuggery and misbehaviour is rampant, when juvenile brats even go to the extent of assaulting policemen in uniform? When school authorities and parents have to watch helplessly the deterioration of discipline?

The purpose of punishment in modern jurisprudence is to reform the individual, except in cases of heinous crimes. The offences under the amendment are committed by respectable and educated people. Should they be sent to jail?

In their haste to punish or deter wrongdoers, the drafters of the amendment may not have considered ‘the other side of the coin’.

If, in fact, unlawful violence is inflicted on a child or young person the normal criminal law could be followed, leaving it to the judge to use his discretion in enhancing the sentence in an appropriate case. The judge should be given a discretion to decide the sentence in implementing the will of the legislator.

This draconian amendment bringing in the new Section 308 A has now precipitated a crisis situation in school administration where three teachers have been given mandatory prison sentences.

What will be the repercussions on discipline in schools in general? What will be the impact of this episode on this country which is already one of the most undisciplined in the world?

Should we blindly accept all UN Conventions without considering their impact on society to which they are being made applicable?

Should not the Government take immediate action to remedy the situation?

Similar provisions are also found in this amendment relating to child abuse, ponogrpahy and statutory rape.

India and several other countries have not adopted this convention. In normal circumstances simple hurt cases are sent to the Mediation Board for settlement. Grievous hurt cases are compoundable very often with payment of compensation to the injured.

However in cases of hurt on children (under 18), the law imposes a mandatory jail term. These offences cannot be compounded nor can the judge bind over the accused or give a suspended jail term. Even in cases of murder, the charge is reduced to culpable homicide and suspended jail terms are imposed.

If a student assaults a teacher, the case is compounded. In the present context teachers, parents and guardians will not be able to chastise children. If they do they may end up in jail with hard core criminals.

It must be noted that minors attain the age of majority at 18 and have the right to vote.

It is not the policy of the law to send first offenders to jail except in the case of heinous crime. Would the ends of justice be met if the offender is ordered to pay compensation to the victim and/or fine. This law should be repealed and persons convicted under the amending Act be given a Presidential Pardon.

G. A. FERNANDO, ANTON FERNANDO - Colombo 7